![]() | Is the Decline of Base Production Accelerating? | The Oil Drum | WSJ Article - Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production | ![]() |
60 comments on Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
60 comments on Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Re: My assumption is essentially that the projects onset at the end of the tabulation year.
I followed the same assumption after seeing your comment yesterday about the way supply additions were tabulated (I still find that disturbing). I got a less steep slope as a result (was originally around 3.4% when I simply used the dates given in Chris's table).
Then I guess the other obvious possibility is because you computed your production changes off EIA (total liquids?), whereas I was using averages of four series. I can check tonight whether that would account for the difference.
No, I used EIA (crude oil + condensates, monthly). I'm going to check in my code also.
Ok - that could well explain it. The EIA C&C line is the most negative of the four I used, so that would tend to give a higher base decline. I'll check quantitatively tonight.
I've redone the calculation using the O&GJ dataset:
The regression is:
5.2963e+3 - 2.64 * Year
R2=0.8552
The 95% confidence interval for the slope is [-2.64 -2.62]. Still higher than yours, whereas using the EIA data I got:
5.7767e+3 - 2.88 * Year
R2=0.8657
The fit quality is slightly better with the EIA.